Review: 13th Age Escalation Edition

Introduction
13th Age is a new fantasy TTRPG published by Pelgrane Press and co-authored by Rob Heinsoo (of  D&D 4E) and Jonathan Tweet (of D&D 3E).  Described as being a "love letter to D&D," it uses the Open Gaming License (OGL) but contributes a lot of modern, narrative-based mechanics to allow you to play "D&D" with a much different style.  It's much more story-based as opposed to simulationist, meaning that a lot of the "fiddly bits" are simplified or abstracted.  Moreover, it's one of the first games to use such an approach with the d20 system.

Perhaps the biggest distinguishing feature is the game's use of "Icons" to tie the players in with the major players in the game world.  These are left intentionally somewhat generic and customization is highly encouraged.  Examples include The Archmage, The Elf Queen, The High Druid, The Lich King, etc.  The term "Escalation Edition" comes from the Escalation Die, which is a momentum-building mechanic that increases the PC's accuracy as a fight progresses.

The game is currently available for preorder here.  The PDF that you get for preordering is called the Escalation Edition, which is a revised version of the 2nd playtest rules.  As the game becomes more finalized updated PDFs will be provided.  The published form is slated for this fall, but essentially it will be whenever the game is ready, so I'm not expecting a physical book any time soon. 

As a final caveat, I'll note that I haven't actually played this game yet; this review is based entirely on my read-through of the PDF.

Summary of the System
Anyone who has played Dungeons and Dragons before will find a lot that they're already familiar with.  The core mechanic is that you roll a d20 and add relevant modifiers + level to resolve tasks.  Characters roll or buy values in the 6 standard ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) and choose an archetypal character class (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard, and, at an unspecified later date, Druid).  Balance is emphasized but without a single unifying structure (i.e. 4E's AEDU power structure).  Members of the same class can be customized by choosing different Talents, which can have a major impact on what kind of Bard, Fighter, etc. you are.  Combat stats are fairly streamlined, with the familiar HP, AC, and initiative being joined by PD (physical defense) and MD (mental defense).  Fans of 4th Edition will find Recoveries familiar (they work much like Healing Surges).  Skills are abstracted into Backgrounds, so instead of gaining ranks in open lock, move silently, hide, etc. you take the "Thief" background and get a bonus in whatever task a Thief might be good at (otherwise you roll straight ability scores).  Which is awesome.  Story-based mechanics are always nice.  Attacks, feats, spells, and powers work much like they have in previous editions. 

New to the D&D tradition is your One Unique Thing, which can be whatever you want but shouldn't have a mechanical benefit unless you trade out a racial power for it.  It is, however, a narrative resource and can be called upon if it would give you an advantage in a situation.  Some examples include a character exuding a holy aura which can be felt by some, a Wizard who is a reincarnation of an ancestor, a monk who was originally a bear but was transformed into a human by the High Druid, or "the only halfling knight of the Emperor."  A lot of potential here, but it's intentionally open-ended so get creative!

Perhaps the most significant new mechanic is your Icon Relationship dice.  Each character gains 3 relationship points to spend on a positive, conflicted, or negative relationship with an icon.  For each point you have you can roll a d6 when you're trying to leverage your connection with that icon.  Now, icons are typically not typical NPCs, but rather distant forces in the world who attract a lot of followers (and enemies!), with whom they may or may not take personal interest in.  You'll probably meet an icon or 2 in the Epic tier, but for most of your career you'll be dealing with the dean of an Arcane Academy instead of the Archmage himself (for example).  In any case, rolling a 6 means you succeed and gain some benefit, whereas a 5 means you succeed but it comes with some sort of complication.

Consistent with the game's narrative approach is the concept of "failing forward."  What this means is that when you roll a skill or ability check, outright failures are discouraged (although sometimes they make sense and can be used).  Instead, you might accomplish the task but suffer some complication or setback.  Instead of failing to pick a lock outright, you take so long that a monster patrol stumbles upon the party, triggering a fight.  Stuff like that.  In this way the action never stalls, but things still don't always turn out the way the players want. 

Resource management in 13th Age is an interesting twist on the traditional approach.  Some classes have daily resources (and all classes have recoveries), but the "day" isn't defined in the same way as in past versions of D&D.  Instead of "resetting" whenever you rest for the night, your "healup" occurs after every fourth battle (open to adjustment; really tough battles might count as two, trivial battles might count as partial battles, or not count at all).  You can still rest up before that occurs, but you suffer some sort of "campaign loss."  The intent here is to encourage heroes to press forward, as well as solve the 5 minute workday problem.  The game definitely caters to a "big damn heroes" playstyle more than gritty realism.  For those that consider this too gamist, it's pointed out that you can run the game in the traditional manner just as easily; any imbalances will be stuff that you've already experienced in previous editions. 

The default assumption is that the game will be played in a Theater of the Mind style, i.e. without a grid and minis.  While such play aids can certainly be used if you want, you won't get the precise tactical options of 3E and (especially) 4E D&D.  That's not to say that combat isn't interesting or tactical, but it's less of an emphasis.  I suspect that combat will be quick and exciting.  As far as positioning is concerned, everything is zone based.  You're either engaged (in melee), nearby (within a single move action), or far away (further than a single move action).  It's assumed that everyone nearby can reach anyone else.  You can still specify relative positions and that will affect what the other combatants can do.  If you say "I'm staying behind the Paladin and shooting my bow" then enemies who attempt to engage you will probably be intercepted or suffer OAs from the Paladin.  Engaged combatants can avoid taking OAs from moving if they pass a Disengange check, but failing means you've eaten up your move action.

Monsters seem fairly well-designed with a streamlined presentation and transparent math.  This makes them very easy to create (ample rules for which are given) and run.  Most monsters have at least one special ability, some have a few.  A lot of times these are situationally triggered, like on certain natural results on the attack roll.  This reduces decision-paralysis for the DM (who has a lot to keep track of already) but still allows monsters to do cool, unique things and "feel" different.  Perhaps not as tactically robust as 4E, but 13th Age is also a gridless system so that much is a given. 

Magic items are assumed to be rare, and not something you can just pick up at a magic item shop.  The exception is minor consumables like potions, oils, and runes (oils and runes enhance equipment temporarily).  True magic items are sentient and bond with their wielder, bestowing quirks and offering up suggestions (either overtly or subtly).  A PC can safely wield a number of magic items equal to their level.  If they exceed this limit, they lose control and succumb to the will of their items.  An example given is that while Dwarven armor might make its wearer more likely to want to drink beer whenever he's in civilization, if he's not in control the item essentially forces him to drink beer even if his body can't handle it.  Also, because of the bond you share with your sentient items you can only carry one per "chakra."  In other words, your sword gets jealous and stops working if you cheat on it with another sword.  It's an interesting take on magic items, complete with roleplaying hooks.  While magic items often grant numerical bonuses, they only range from +1 to +3, which is reasonable I suppose (I'm not a fan of item bonuses personally).


Positive (The Good)

• Incremental Advances.  The general idea is that you get one "feature" from your next level (increased HP, a new spell, a new feat, etc.) at the end of a session if you've made significant campaign progress.  So instead of getting everything at once when you level, you can cherry pick your next level's goodies depending on what you want to play with early.  
• Backgrounds.  I love having a creative, narrative-based means to gain mechanical benefits. 
• Intercepting.  Nice defender feature as a universal maneuver (assuming you're not engaged).  Fighters are even better at it.
• An optional lasting wound rule, though I might houserule that a wound lasts 1D4 days instead of until your next heal-up (rest).  
• Flexible Attacks.  These are attacks that you choose to use after you roll, sometimes triggering off of different natural results of the die.  They're mostly for Fighters and Bards, though. Both of those classes look very awesome in general, too.
• Rituals.  They're very open-ended and resolved narratively, but basically you can take longer and expend components to cast a better version of any of your spells.  These typically don't have combat applications (mostly because they almost always take at least several minutes, if not several hours, to cast). 

Conflicted (The Neutral)

• Monsters don't have ability scores.  While this simplifies things, it does eliminate the possibility of opposed checks.  Advice is also given in the "Speed" section of the combat chapter for things like opposed ability checks, but as the rules are currently written that would only be valid for 2 PCs.  My tentative houserule for monster ability checks is to take their Physical/Mental Defense, subtract 10, and then adjust modifiers by +/- 1-3 to represent different ability scores.  For example, a nimble kobold might use PD-10+2 for a Dex check, whereas a sluggish ogre might use PD-10-3 for Dex.  Scaling should stay consistent because +level is added to pretty much everything, but ultimately I haven't tested this so I don't know if it screws with the system math at all.
• Armor and weapon stats are all class-based.  Which certainly simplifies things and ensures that players don't min/max against archetype, but it's a bit of a stretch that a Wizard's base AC in heavy armor is 11, whereas the Fighter's is 15.  Training won't help you that much, and besides you're still encased in metal so you should be fairly well protected.  You also suffer an attack penalty to boot. 
• Interestingly, the game only goes up to level 10.  Levels 1-4 are the Adventurer tier, levels 5-7 are the Champion tier, and levels 8-10 are the Epic tier. 
• Mooks are a group of monsters that share HP.  They're kind of like minions in that they go down quickly; each chunk of "damage to kill" that is subtracted from the total HP kills 1 mook.  For example, if a group of 5 has 25 HP then every 5 damage dealt kills a mook.  A 4 damage attack wouldn't take any out, but if the Fighter slices through the group for 12 damage afterwards he'd take out 3 of them.  The fact that you can sometimes take out multiple individuals is neat, but it seems so much easier to just use 4E's minion rules (which would translate really well) and not have to track HP at all. 
• "Don't Sweat the Modifiers."  There aren't any modifiers for flanking/ganging up, firing at distant targets, cover, etc.  The advice given is that if you have to use something, use no more than a +2, and negative modifiers should almost always be a -1.  While this definitely speeds up play and keeps things simple for Theater of the Mind combat, it eliminates a lot of tactical choices.  After all, -1 vs -5 for heavy cover is a pretty big difference!  I'm considering porting the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic from D&D Next over to preserve play speed but make modifiers meaningful.  I'm not sure how it would work out in play if ganging up = advantage, but leaving enemies disengaged would definitely leave the squishies more open to attacks (in addition to the possibility of disengaged creatures ganging up on PCs using the same tactic!) so there would theoretically be a tradeoff there.  Will require playtesting.

Negative (The Bad)

• From the looks of it, the Druid class will not be in the core book (but it will be made available later; apparently its design was too ambitious to get done on time).  That's a bummer, since it's my favorite class.
• Rangers (another of my favorite classes) seem kind of boring.  I get the sense that they didn't try too hard when they designed them, and it's not just because they're a more "simple" class because the Barbarian doesn't give me that feeling.
• Backgrounds (which are analogous to skills in D&D) are class-based by default (though providing a standard number for each class is discussed as an alternative rule).  The authors admit that it's a legacy thing for aesthetics, and I just can't help but feel that the more balanced and fair version should be the default even if it strays from the status quo.  After all, "per day" resources are replaced by "every four encounters" by default.  Seems like a similar issue that they went the opposite way on.
• AC vs PD/MD.  Specifically, as far as I can tell there's no proficiency bonus for weapon attacks, yet AC is almost always better than PD/MD (sometimes significantly so).  It seems like spellcasters will be way more accurate, but perhaps I'm missing something in the math.
• Seems like accuracy might be a bit low in general, though depending on how quick combat rounds are the escalation die might ameliorate this.

Concluding Thoughts and Overall Impression
With D&D Next's design goal of modularity and making a flexible game that can adapt to many different styles, it's interesting to see 13th Age taking the opposite approach.  To be fair, many critics doubt that D&DN will be successful in its endeavor, with the end result being a game which has some parts that appeal to pretty much everyone, but a whole that doesn't do a particular style as well as X edition or game.  It's a valid point, I think.  13th Age doesn't try to do everything, but it does cater to a specific playstyle and aesthetic and it does its thing really well.  It's not for everyone, but it doesn't try to be.  That said, it is versatile in its own ways.  Alternative rules are pointed out in the text, as well as explanations for why the authors use a certain rule (which lets you make informed decisions about whether you want to use or modify it yourself).  Transparency is important here (and hopefully D&DN takes the same approach with its modules).  The setting is also intentionally generic, as well as the mechanics that go along with it.  Relationships work the same way whether your "Emperor" is akin to Palpatine, Aragorn, Cornelius Fudge, or of your own creation.  The title isn't necessarily meant to be used literally, but rather to represent the major ruler of a powerful kingdom.  Every 13th Age campaign is supposed to be unique despite the strong ties of the core mechanic with the setting.  I think that's quite admirable, for what it's worth.

I guess the most important question is, do I see myself playing this game?  I'm not ready to give up on 4E completely, D&D Next intrigues me, and I just might consider The One Ring to be my favorite system (interestingly, like 13th Age it's also very niche in its play experience).  13th Age definitely offers a playstyle unlike those other systems and for that reason it's worth having around, but ultimately it's going to boil down to whether I have the time and whether my group(s) have any interest in playing it.  I guess that question can really only be answered after I actually play the game.  I'll reserve "final" judgement until then, but I predict that it will offer a fun experience in play.  It certainly hits my current interest in RPGs (somewhat realized, or at least strengthened, when I started playing TOR), which are 1) a simple core system and minimum of subsystems, 2) open-ended character traits, and 3) a narrative focus with mechanical ties to the game world.

If nothing else, the game offers a lot of mechanics that can be implemented in other games.  In fact, the authors openly advocate it.  Because of the similarities in the system I can easily see various types of 13th Age/4E hybrids being playable.  The Escalation Die, One Unique Thing, Icons/Relationships, and Backgrounds can easily be ported over to other systems with minimal effort.  The heal-up mechanic can even be a balancing tool in previous editions that use per-day resources (I'd already considered implementing something similar in 4E, though it was never a priority because my group doesn't try to abuse the 5 minute workday in the first place). 

After spending several days digesting everything I see the game as a worthy addition to the hobby, and I'm looking forward to seeing the more revised and cleaned up rules (as well as getting the physical book!). 

Humans in Fantasy RPGs (or RPGs in general)

I don't claim this to be any more than a personal anecdote, but I thought it was interesting the other day that while perusing the Races section of 13th Age I had absolutely no interest in reading about humans.  Similarly, more often than not I tend to avoid humans while building characters for D&D as well.  Now, this was interesting because just a few days earlier I was working on a character for The One Ring, and I found that I was drawn most strongly to the human cultures (Bardings, Beornings, and Woodmen).  Granted, I'd also LOVE to play a Hobbit in that game, but I digress.

Perhaps the broader issue is a desire to have tangible ties to the greater world in the game.  The human cultures in TOR exemplify this beautifully, not surprisingly, as they're all very much a part of Middle Earth.  They're all human, yes, but they all have different mechanical bits to distinguish them from each other (which also happens to fit their flavor exceptionally well).

In D&D, 13th Age, and most fantasy RPGs for that matter humans are typically generic.  Their schtick usually seems to be "they're diverse and adaptable," and while this opens you up to a lot of different possibilities it also gives you absolutely nothing to go on.  You're starting from scratch, as it were, which is fine if you have a very specific concept in mind, but that starting point is sometimes quite useful.  If I decide to play a Wood Elf I know that I'll likely be a sneaky, perceptive guy who lives harmoniously with nature and is either very long-lived or outright immortal.  If I'm playing a Dwarf I'm an ale-swilling tough guy with a Scottish accent who is really proud of his beard.  Etc.  Even if you decide to play against type to create an interesting and memorable character the fact still remains that the stereotype is a starting point.

What it boils down to is as soon as someone says they're an Elf I have an immediate image in my mind of the culture that that character comes from.  Same with a Dwarf, and same with a Beorning, Barding, or Woodman.  But a generic Human?  Not so much.  For a genre that's so heavily influenced by archetypes, this is significant (whether that's a good or bad thing will depend on the player, though!).

13th Age Preorder

Soooo I preordered the game on a whim.  You get a PDF of the most recent playtest version (revised), which will be further updated as the game continues to be tweaked.  Most of the playtest reviews and impressions I read were glowing, so I figured "what the hell, why not give it a shot?"  I haven't gotten all that far into it (haven't even read any of the classes), but I'm sort of wondering whether the preorder was such a good idea.

One can't help but compare it to D&D Next, since the game is described by its designers as "a love letter to D&D," and especially since those designers are Rob Heinsoo (of 4th Edition) and Jonathon Tweet (of 3rd Edition).  The game heavily emphasizes story and narrative priority, but it seems like it might have gone a bit too far in that direction.  Overall the style of game that can be run seems like it will be a bit niche (at first glance), as opposed to D&D Next's goal of appealing to as broad an audience as possible with modularity.  In short, the system seems less flexible than I'd hoped, though I may be wrong on that.  The writing does transparently advocate house rules, alternative rules, etc. 

Another letdown is that I've become very excited by the prospect of bounded accuracy, which is not in 13th Age.  While the escalation die is a good idea, the relatively low-accuracy of PCs seems like a step backwards (to un-errata'd 4E), but perhaps quicker combat rounds will rectify that. 

I do like the skill system, which is even more open-ended than D&D Next, but unfortunately defaults to certain classes getting more skills than others (that's getting house-ruled right away!). 

The biggest disappointment is that it seems like the Druid might not appear in the core book, ostensibly because of design difficulties.  I'd rather the thing be delayed and actually get a core Druid, especially since the PDF will be updated as the game gets more finalized anyways. 

More thoughts to come as I continue to read the PDF.

Legends and Lore Playtest Update

Wow, it's been a long time since I've updated.  What can I say, the field season is a busy time.  It's also proving pretty difficult to organize an online game with my group(s) from home while I'm out of state.  So far I've only gotten to run a single (short) session with some non-gamers, but it seems like this round of playtesting will last longer that initially expected anyways, so there's still time. 

Here is today's Legends and Lore article where Mike Mearls gives an update on how the feedback from the first playtest packet is shaping the ongoing design of the game. 

It's no surprise that a lot of people are clamoring for more combat options for Fighters (and martial characters in general).  "I hit with my sword" Fighters have their place (given how many non-gamers I've introduced to D&D I can definitely appreciate them!), but the 4E Fighter was by far the most engaging incarnation of the class, and it'll be nice to see some meaningful choices to make during combat.  I'm hoping that they'll be simple (quick to resolve), redundancy will be avoided (no more "it's a different power because now it's 2[W]+mods and prone!"), and flexible enough for further improvisation.  I like that complexity will be catered to in both a tactical rules module and a narrative rules module, and I'm sure I'll be using both in my games depending on the situation.

In addition to maneuvers in general, it's looking like the Fighter will be more than just "I have better stats."  Which is definitely a good thing.  After all, of the 4 core classes it's pretty obvious that the Fighter should be the best at Fighting, but what about when the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin come out?  All of these classes should also have very competitive damage, HD, etc., and they also have a bunch of "extras."  Giving the Fighter some "extras" as baseline opens up the opportunity for the other warrior classes to actually have competitive combat stats.  Otherwise where would a Ranger fall compared with a Rogue vs Fighter, for example? 

I'm glad that a lot of people commented on not liking the Surprise rules, because there wasn't very much discussion about them online.  Personally I think that it should at least grant advantage to the attackers, if not an extra turn.  An initiative bonus is not quite exciting enough.

I'm NOT thrilled about the new skills system they're tinkering with.  It's sloppy design if two different characters roll 2 different types of checks just because one is trained and one isn't.  Furthermore, why should training make everyone exactly equal?  Why should an 8 Int Rogue be just as good at disarming traps that require logic and/or knowledge as a 15 Int Rogue just because both are trained?  After all, just because a whole class of students is exposed to the same material doesn't mean they're all equally proficient and knowledgeable.  Some get As, some get Ds.  I vastly prefer the +3 bonus that you add onto an ability check.  It makes different characters approach the same skill in different ways.  An 8 Str Gnome Wizard will be far more successful threatening someone with a force of magic using Cha to Intimidate, whereas an 18 Str Minotaur Fighter can punch a hole in the wall and threaten to do the same to your face, adding Intimidate to a Str check.  With an "Intimidate check" replacing the ability score check the Gnome could say that he's punching a hole in the wall and it would be fine mechanically, despite the fact that he's a spindly little guy even by Gnome standards.  I certainly wouldn't feel threatened if he flexed his muscles at me. 

The article concludes with healing and resting.  I'm honestly not sure what kind of system I'd prefer, but I definitely do NOT want a healbot to be required (and that includes wands of CLW).  I do like the idea of making the healing rules modular, with options for high-action, quick-recovery games as well as grittier, more deadly games.  Hopefully there's also some middle ground.

Anyways, it also seems like the next round is put off until later in the summer (as opposed to early July).  Given that I haven't messed around with this first playtest all that much, I can't complain.  I'd like to make some minor tweaks to the system while it's still in a very bare-bones state, without getting distracted by all of the shiny new modules.

D&D Pronunciation

Found this Pronunciation Guide on EN World (which I now know how to pronounce, lol).  Nifty stuff.

DM rolls

I had a random thought the other day after reading a discussion about the lack of passive perception in the D&D Next playtest.  The way I see it, the advantage of passive Perception is that it speeds up task resolution, but more importantly it allows the DM to gauge the party's awareness by not alerting them to the fact that something's up (which is obvious when the DM asks you to "make a Perception check"). 

The disadvantage, of course, is that "assuming the average" can get pretty boring since you know you'll always succeed at a given DC.  Does this realistically represent awareness?  You can assume that the adventurers are always "on alert" and cautious, but nobody can spend 100% of their day completely focused on every little aspect of their environment.  Trust me, I do bird surveys for a living and it's tough to keep track of every individual singing and calling around you even for just 10 minutes.  To suggest that an adventurer is constantly equally aware (unless they're "actively searching," in which case they can do worse) is, quite simply, pretty absurd.  Minds wander, people daydream, sometimes people are talking with each other and other times they're silent, and perhaps most importantly sometimes people focus on the wrong thing.  You can't give everything equal attention, so why assume that you're always focusing equally on The Thing That Matters regardless of what it might be?

My solution - the random number table!  No, really!  A DM can simply roll up a list of random numbers between 1 and 20 (easy enough to do in Excel), crossing off each number as it gets "used."  You'd also need a reference sheet with all of your player's modifiers (which is no different than keeping note of their passive perception scores, really).  I'm constantly scribbling things down when I DM, so the players would be none the wiser that I just "used up" a perception roll for them.  If you work from a laptop you could even use an electronic dice roller without your players knowing. 

I haven't tested this idea in play yet, but theoretically it combines the advantages of passive perception (fluid play and not cluing your players in that something's up) with the advantages of rolling (simulating random chance in a variable task).  Win, win, if you ask me.

Tenents of Old School Gaming

The other day I came across A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming on a thread on Enworld.  Given that one of the goals of D&D Next is to allow for a wide range of play experiences with the same rules set, it occurred to me that I should look deeper into what a more "old school" style has to offer.  The most salient points are organized into what the author calls the four "zen moments."

First Zen Moment:  Rulings, Not Rules

This is an interesting point, and even if it's one that's widely known it's not necessarily one that's widely understood.  The assumption that many people make is that the first TTRPG systems lacked a plethora of rules because the hobby hadn't evolved that refinement yet.  This may be true to some extent, but it doesn't explain the recent proliferation of retro-clones.  I personally appreciate a simple, streamlined system with only a few core concepts that can be applied to a wide variety of situations.  The reason why I haven't embraced Basic D&D, AD&D, etc. is because after looking through the books I find the rules that do exist to be clunky.  There are a lot of tables (some that need to be regularly consulted in-game), situational subsystems, and that's not to mention the utter lack of balance and non-intuitive systems like THAC0 (the system whereby lower AC is better).  4E may have suffered from supplement glut, confusing errata, and a few math errors here and there, but the core system was very solid and intuitive. 

Here is where D&D Next has an interesting opportunity to realize a more old-school style of play while using modern rules to do it.  Not only that, but players can toggle anywhere they like on the spectrum, and in some cases the more complex modules can inform rulings using the more simple core.  To illustrate what I mean by this, let's use the Fighter as an example.  The Fighter is going to have the option for maneuvers-based, 4E-style builds that will presumably be as balanced against competing options as possible (that's what a whole team of game designers, as well as a slew of playtesters who in some cases are competent in game design themselves, are tasked with accomplishing).  Even if you're not interested in using those tactical modules or that complex Fighter build, it pays to be familiar with it because those maneuvers can serve as extremely useful reference points.  In a purely old-school game using a non-modular system the GM can make rulings for improvised actions, but they'll always be a shot in the dark.  The easiest methods are to substitute an attack for an improvised maneuver (like a Dex vs Dex contest to trip a foe), which if past experience is any measure is almost never going to be used because it's usually underpowered, or to simply allow the Fighter to attempt things like this in addition to attacking, which is obviously overpowered (and will result in players fishing for improvised actions every single turn, which will bog down gameplay).  The middle ground is much more interesting, where maneuvers and attacks can be combined with a drawback in some sort of middle ground, with the end result being tactically powerful but not automatically the obvious choice all the time. 

Improvisation and creativity can be maintained alongside balance, instead of "you need a feat/power/etc. for that" for the sake of balance.  Ultimately I do think that rewarding creativity and improvisation is important because that's the biggest strength of tabletop gaming.  You can attempt anything you come up with instead of being railroaded by computer codes like in video games.  In a way, some modern game rules bring that "coded" element too far into the foreground, and that's just not playing to the advantage of the medium.

Second Zen Moment:  Player Skill, not Character Abilities

This one's a little more contentious in my opinion, but the beauty of delving into this old-school toolkit is that everything doesn't come pre-packaged; groups can choose different elements to suit their tastes.  Aside from the fact that simply testing player skill can bog things down (i.e. requiring players to specify searching every corner of a room instead of simply rolling a search check), it also breaks the immersion of roleplaying a character who is different from you. 

The biggest sticking point to me comes into play during social challenges, and there are two issues here.  The first is simply that different players have different levels of comfort and interest getting into character and actually acting.  The classic example is a shy player who wants to play a smooth-talking Bard.  Requiring such a player to come up with the actual speech he uses to change the king's mind is simply not good gaming if the player would rather just give a short, general description and roll a Diplomacy check.  The rules shouldn't restrict personal style too much, and besides that it's easier to give roll-players what they want and allow roleplayers to ignore it than it is to force rollplayers to invent their own mechanics.  Second, there's a disconnect with a clever player controlling a stupid character, or a smooth-talking player controlling a character who dumped Cha, etc.  The idea is that Int, Cha, or whatever can be dumped but the character won't really suffer the drawbacks of doing so.  In other words, the player's skill gives the character a free ability.  Why should the Fighter be able to out-Charisma the Bard when the Bard class specifically gives up some combat expertise in order to have more of a social presence? 

Ultimately, there's not "right answer" and fortunately it seems like D&D Next will support both playstyles well. 

Third Zen Moment:  Heroic, Not Superhero

I'm not sure that this one's all that important, but perhaps old-school grognards would disagree.  The premise is that starting out as Joe Normal is requisite for the experience, and I don't necessarily buy that.  More adept individuals have just as much of a need to survive using their wits as every day people, because the simple fact is that every day people don't run around doing the sorts of things that adventurers tend to do!  It's really a question of how deep into the "origin story" you want to go ("I just picked up a sword for the first time" vs "I've already demonstrated my skill and potential in the field").  Where your character eventually ends up isn't necessarily an old school vs modern element, either.  I would argue, in fact, that old school Magic Users are indeed superheroic; the goal of modern games is simply to allow the non-magic guys to do the same.

Fourth Zen Moment:  Forget "Game Balance"

Isn't this an interesting point!  As someone who was attracted to 4E specifically because the classes are all balanced against each other, you might think I'd wholeheartedly take issue with this.  True, I don't want to repeat my 3rd edition experience where the casters are all but useless in the first few levels, and by the high levels the situation is flip-flopped.  However, one component of the argument is that not every encounter should be assumed to be "fair," and I've come to realize that this is a very good point.  Of course a modern game like 4E gives you to tools to finely craft a balanced encounter, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to adhere to them!  Admittedly it's easier in a more streamlined system to gauge threat level more quickly (in real time), but I think this is generally good advice for GMs in any system to keep in mind, as it grounds the players into the game world (which feels more dynamic and realistic by being inhabited by all manners of creatures, and not just those that are an "appropriate challenge"). 

Player Advice

It takes the effort of everyone in the group to run a game more old-style, and it's helpful for players to know the basic assumptions of what they should be doing.  Mapping is emphasized (even if it's just a flowchart), as the player needs to keep in mind where things are to use the environment and terrain to not only their advantage, but to avoid getting flanked by reinforcements or trapped.  Dungeons tend to be tests of attrition, with the end goal being the monsters near the end with the big loot pile.  Fighting everything means you'll never make it far enough, so scouting ahead is important (see also using the environment to your advantage).  Asking a lot of question is important, both to clarify what you may be facing and any details of the environment that may be important.  As a side note, this is valuable in any game from the GM's perspective because having to think about such details can provide a spark of inspiration (which can lead to an interesting scenario, or just help to more fully flesh out the world). 

Other tips include using hirelings, protecting the Magic User, keeping in mind that not all monsters will be within the party's skill to defeat, and gathering information about a dungeon beforehand.  This means doing your research and talking to people in-game before heading out.  Ultimately, it's about preparation and careful thought.  

DM Advice

Spicing things up outside of the standard procedure is required.  Otherwise things turn into "I attack," "Monster Attacks," "I attack again," etc.  Yes, you can spice things up in any system, but you arguably have more time for it when combat options are simple and fights end quickly.  Coming up with random consequences for bad rolls (and benefits for good rolls!) is encouraged, as long as you play fair and don't favor either the monsters or the players.  You need to give players a reason to trust your judgement.

Colorful descriptions and improvised actions are often easier without the constraint of a grid and minis.  Even if you use a grid, go with what makes sense in the game world rather than just what makes sense on the table in front of you.  Resource management is important to consider, and make sure you can think of ways to counter the 5 minute workday.  Apparently a lot of old-school gamers consider this stuff a feature and not a bug (personally I'd rather not be bothered with tracking rations, arrows, etc., let alone being locked into a spellcasting system that assumes this is important to you). 

The closing statements are "You are the rulebook.  There is no other rulebook." and "Make it fast, make it colorful, and make it full of decisions for the players."  At the very least it speaks to my aversion for 3rd edition's "you need to have complicated rules for everything, which then must be remembered or referenced" philosophy. 

As a final thought I'll simply state that there's some valuable stuff in the old-school philosophy, as well as things that are eschewed by modern games for a reason.  One thing that this reading has emphasized for me is the value of keeping in mind the strength of TTRPGs, which is maintaining the sense that truly anything is possible.  The more I think about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that a simple core that can handle a wide variety of situations is an admirable quality in game design.  D&D 3E had too many complicated sub-systems, whereas 4E probably had too many specific "exceptions" such that they became hard-wired pieces.  That's not to say that either are bad games (even if I despise 3rd edition personally), but rather that they don't play to the main strength of the TTRPG.  Third Edition's major goal is simulationism and system mastery, whereas Fourth Edition's is tactical combat that borderlines on being a miniatures war(mini)game.  Both are valid experiences, but they give up some of the open-endedness that makes roleplaying games great.  I sincerely hope that Fifth Edition's modularity really can allow groups to switch as the situation dictates (namely for me, being able to bust out a tactical combat for major battles but otherwise have a simple core).